omicron priority's Page

in nothingness, and in more, i am.
the fateful and fickle experience of life is not more, and nothing less, of complicated illusions of control and chaos. thus a diametric set on which perception is based upon. thus all human knowledge is based upon contradiction and relativism. a good way to put it is to say that the very computer you are engaged with now is motionless, correct. so this is a truth, relative to the untruth that it is moving. and from this truth it can give base to the fact that the computer is not moving, opposed to the falsity that it is. then from facts we can give laws to define our experience of the "physical" universe (whatever that may be) EG. objects in motion tend to stay in motion... objects that are motionless tend to remain so... and so on... so from these laws, with which we all define that which "is",we gain KNOWLEDGE, irrefutable and concrete. or so it seems... however if you change your perspective (which is a choice) and make that computer relative to the sun it would be false to say that it is motionless. while it appears to be motionless (relative to you and what ever else is within the sphere of your peripherals) it is moving thousands of miles a minute; taking the rotation and revolution of the earth into account.so then it seems to me that laws are dependent on fact which rely on truth, and it seems that truth is only so through perception. so if perception is a choice of relativities (IE. the polar opposites of good evil moving motionless rising falling) then truth, the base of all knowledge is a choice. so all laws truths and apparent knowledge is a choice based in relativity. as good is the opposite of evil something that seems evil is only so because it is compared to a "known" good. yet Evil compared to a greater Evil would seem the good "choice" would it not? So then when does the varying shades of good and evil end? is there such things as polar opposites; and how does one define a law of good, without evil? further how does one know that "the law of good" is the ultimate expression of good and not just a "lighter shade of evil"?

it all comes down to perception which of its nature is a choice.
so i one might ask then can i fly? yes relative to a fixed point in space, sure you might "choose" to define flying as moving in a direction from one point to another without the aid of any other force. gravity however being (seemingly) ever constant would cause you to "fall" toward earth. again it is about the choice of defining and the choice of meaning which leads to ever deepening paradoxes. to say to fly you might mean move in a fashion so that you are in control of your vector regardless of gravity. this is not a possibility as the force of gravity is a "known" truth or at least seems so as there is no human perception that has yet eclipsed that which may lye behind gravity and its causes. so armed with this apparent knowledge it seems that another force is required to negate the force of gravity. thus without going into the specifics of the bernoli principal and other cycles of forces. it is possible to fly , just not without the aid of another force (provided by wings(lift), various forms of power-plants (thrust)etc..etc) at least this close to the earth..... if your still reading this i commend you for your patients, i suppose the over all point being. truth is choice. and all is simply a point of view and as such is an "opinion" (of sorts) and never an absolute! as i am good i am evil. as i am intelligent i am ignorant all relative to the defining rule of measure. so we have the blessing and curse to chose the rule by which we measure ourselves and the world around us.